D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

Right, as I replied to Robert, I agree. I just don't think it constrains the GM much at all. When I run DW I simply have ADDITIONAL constraints, ones with teeth.

I'm honestly still pretty fuzzy as to what benefit is received from adding additional constraints to the GM. Why would you want restrictions on what you can do running the game?

 

[SableWyvern]

Right, as I replied to Robert, I agree. I just don't think it constrains the GM much at all. When I run DW I simply have ADDITIONAL constraints, ones with teeth.

Well, of course the game designed with the specific intent of constraining the GM does so more than a system that empowers the GM to make judgement calls as they see fit. I can't see anyone disputing that.

I will dispute any claim that one method is inherently superior to the other.

 

[Deset Gled]

The underlying disagreement here seems mostly to be not actually about the decision making process, so much as the player relationship to that process, right? Seemingly no one disagree that "trying to simulate plausible results from a world in motion" does not narrow all decision down to single, discrete outcomes..

In general, I think the underlying disagreement here is everybody has drawn their own set of little boxes in the sand, then wants to argue about where the lines are. The difficulty is that not everyone agrees on where anybody else drew their lines, what shapes there are, how close they are, when they move, or even how many boxes there are and what to call them. The rhetoric around dictating the boxes of others versus descring one's own can get heated.

Of course, the games aren't actually played in the sand. The sand isn't real. The spoon isn't real. Everything is made up and the points don't matter.

 

[zakael19]

I'm honestly still pretty fuzzy as to what benefit is received from adding additional constraints to the GM. Why would you want restrictions on what you can do running the game?

For me? Freedom and creative channeling. We had a thread here recently about how constraints help creativity (which is a borne out by research notion). By saying "GM: here's the list of things you're allowed to do, in service of This Agenda" I find myself freed to follow and play that side of the game as hard and direct as I want.

Because games that set explicit expectations/constraints for the GM tend to have play procedures that are fairly up-front to the players, they know the stakes. When things go sideways and you Capture Them or Use Up Their Resources or other fictional outcomes the table is prepared to accept it and find it a plausible and desirable answer (and in fact I've had players egg me on to push things harder).

In contrast, because stakes were often murky and play procedures somewhat opaque in 5e (plus a lack of like game/premise provided up front Player Agenda and expectations) - I had players get upset at task failure, combat outcomes, and other play events.

 

[JConstantine]

In general, I think the underlying disagreement here is everybody has drawn their own set of little boxes in the sand, then wants to argue about where the lines are. The difficulty is that not everyone agrees on where anybody else drew their lines, what shapes there are, how close they are, when they move, or even how many boxes there are and what to call them. The rhetoric around dictating the boxes of others versus descring one's own can get heated.

Yo dawg, I heard you like sandboxes, so I drew boxes in your sand so you can box sand in your sandbox.

 

[AlViking]

Very little can explicitly prevent a GM from inconsistent ad-hoc decisions. Rules can help shape the GM's decision space (eg: the presence of random tables by location for encounters, and random encounter procedures based on a x in 6 chance etc); signal to the GM what's expected of them and provide heuristics on decision making (Agendas and Principles in a PBTA, GM guidelines in OSE, etc); create gameplay that foregrounds stakes and player ideations (eg: FITD Action Rolls); and other similar design space.

The more open the GM decision making space is, the more open it is to unintentional inconsistency. This is why most games with fairly relaxed/loose mechanics that I've seen stress impartiality, preparation that fits within the procedures of the game (eg: Blorb style stuff), and recording rulings in an open way that creates a procedure from that moment forth.

Without any of that, the only thing preventing inconsistency is hope and wishes. Then you get sad posts to r/OSR or DMAcademy or whatever going "hey, so I did X in my game and I think it was wrong ."

Fortunately it's been a long time since I really f'ed up, but sometimes you just have to tell people you made a mistake. It's why I changed my approach years ag, if I'm not targeting a goal I can shift the campaign as needed. For example one of the tricks that works for me is that I typically only have a handful of factions that are really important at play for the current scope of play and it's not normally that hard to track. I just keep a sheet or two handy with a summary of NPCs, factions, locations and maybe a note or two on recent history. If something is really complex or has a lot of history I add it to the DM only wiki. It helps that if the party really goes off in left field they understand if I have to reference notes for a minute.

It does mean that I can't get attached to possible evolution of some NPCs and factions. If we go off on some tangent I may have to leave all the really cool planning and established NPCs and factions behind in the dust. Other times I do things like let them go to a prison island (kind of similar in concept to Australia as a penal colony) and then realize I didn't give them a way off. So now I just have to figure out some options to get them off even if it's going to take several sessions to resolve.

As far as bad rulings, everyone makes those now and then. We just chat about it and decide how to rule things going forward.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As real as it gets, old son.

For us, a few months is nothing. Hell, I sometimes ask my DM about in-game stuff from five or ten real-world years ago because something caught my eye on rereading the game log.

My problem with this answer is that it's saying because for SOME players, a few months is nothing, that means that for EVERYONE a few months needs to be nothing. Nobody is allowed to complain because the DM has done seven things without explanation in the past three, four, five months, because the DM always needs to be given that much time.

It just cycles back to what I said earlier: the DM needs to be given functionally infinite trust, and nothing short of open, egregious, aggressively offensive violation of trust--in other words, trust is either perfect or nonexistent!--is ever a valid reason to do or say anything at all.

When does the DM do anything that actually justifies you spending literal months bothered about any number of unexplained, "you'll find out later" moments? Just declaring that you're putting on the Viking Hat is not enough. I'm sorry, it's just flat not enough. There has GOT to be more than that! Some minimal allowance is required to get the game going, but I haven't seen anyone give even the slightest thought to how trust is built and maintained in a group. It's always just presumed to be there and functionally perfect.

"This style isn't for anyone who isn't willing to accept a wink and a smile as justification for suspicious-but-not-egregious DM behavior" means this is a pretty damn restrictive playstyle. It's not just not for everyone--it's for pretty few people at all!

 

[AlViking]

This seems contradictory - something that only constrains me to the extent that I want it is hardly a constraint at all.

Having discipline to follow an established pattern and decisions I've made in the past is not contradictory. Sometimes things change but especially with an established NPC I go back and double check notes and game logs before I do anything drastic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My problem with this answer is that it's saying because for SOME players, a few months is nothing, that means that for EVERYONE a few months needs to be nothing. Nobody is allowed to complain because the DM has done seven things without explanation in the past three, four, five months, because the DM always needs to be given that much time.

It just cycles back to what I said earlier: the DM needs to be given functionally infinite trust, and nothing short of open, egregious, aggressively offensive violation of trust--in other words, trust is either perfect or nonexistent!--is ever a valid reason to do or say anything at all.

When does the DM do anything that actually justifies you spending literal months bothered about any number of unexplained, "you'll find out later" moments? Just declaring that you're putting on the Viking Hat is not enough. I'm sorry, it's just flat not enough. There has GOT to be more than that! Some minimal allowance is required to get the game going, but I haven't seen anyone give even the slightest thought to how trust is built and maintained in a group. It's always just presumed to be there and functionally perfect.

"This style isn't for anyone who isn't willing to accept a wink and a smile as justification for suspicious-but-not-egregious DM behavior" means this is a pretty damn restrictive playstyle. It's not just not for everyone--it's for pretty few people at all!

Then how is it that so many people appear to play this way? Your IMO hyperbolic concerns seem to assume a massive player underclass mercilessly tyraniized by the trust-weilding GM elite.

 

[JConstantine]

Your IMO hyperbolic concerns seem to assume a massive player underclass mercilessly tyraniized by the trust-weilding GM elite.

Well, this certainly puts a new spin on the class war. Wonder what sort of GM King Charlie would be.